A Systematic Review of Retractions in the Field of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.

METHODS

A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of previous research that has investigated retractions within the biomedical fields and assess their methodological quality. We searched three major electronic databases for articles on retractions within the biomedical field: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. In total, 162 articles were included in the analysis. We evaluated their methodological quality using the items of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Cochrane guidance. The studies had been published in more than 20 biomedical disciplines or fields of investigation, and two-thirds were published after 2017. Concerning methodology, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; five studies did not meet any of the suggested AMSTAR-2 categories or Cochrane guidelines. The most prevalent reported reasons for retraction were fraud and plagiarism (21.0%). In summary, there has been increasing interest in assessing the characteristics and impact of retractions in the biomedical sciences. The studies cited types of misconduct more often than honest errors as a major reason for retraction. The methodological quality of the existing studies in this area appears to be suboptimal. Future investigators should improve upon this, particularly in the quality of the data selection and extraction.

Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal’s Impact Factor

BACKGROUND

Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF) is often used to evaluate the relative reputation and quality of academic journals in their respective fields, and can greatly influence the quality and scope of subsequent manuscript submissions. Therefore, many if not all academic journals are interested in increasing their JIF, to improve their academic impact.

AIM

To determine the importance of the integrity of the editorial and publication process in improving the academic influence of academic journals and the JIF of academic journals.

METHODS

In this paper, we describe our statistical analysis of bibliometric factors - including the 2021 JIFs released in the Journal Citation Report™ 2022, discipline rankings, received and published articles in 2019-2021, and webpage visits and downloads - for seven journals published by Baishideng Publishing Group (Baishideng) and indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded™; ultimately, we introduce and discuss the editing and publishing processes of Baishideng’s journals in their entirety, as they form the basis for our objective of safeguarding and bolstering integrity in academic publication.

RESULTS

For the seven journals assessed, their 2021 JIFs were basically unchanged from 2020, with the current metric ranging from 5.374 for World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) to 1.534 for World Journal of Clinical Cases (WJCC). Further assessments of the journals’ bibliometrics from 2019 to 2020, showed that World Journal of Stem Cells has the highest self-citation rate (1.43%) and World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has the lowest (0.21%). Additionally, the total 3012 articles published during this period were cited by more than 20000 articles in approximately 8000 academic journals. Of note, the 1102 articles published in WJG were cited by articles in 3059 journals, among which 171 journals have a JIF of > 10, including internationally renowned academic journals such as CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (2021 JIF 286.130, record count: 1), Lancet (2021 JIF 202.731, record count: 4), Nature Reviews Immunology (2021 JIF 108.555, record count: 2), Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2021 JIF 73.082, record count: 9), Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2021 JIF 45.042, record count: 8), Gastroenterology (2021 JIF 33.883, record count: 19), and Gut (2021 JIF 31.793, record count: 21). This suggests that Baishideng’s journals have been widely recognized for their academic quality. In the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database, all seven Baishideng-published journals obtained a 2022 Journal Article Influence Index (JAII). For example, WJG has a 2022 JAII of 22.048, ranking 18^th out of 102 journals in the field of gastroenterology & hepatology in the RCA, with 469909 total citations (6/102) and 21313 total articles (5/102). The numbers of manuscripts received and published in 2021 were both higher than those in 2019-2020. For example, WJCC received a total of 3650 manuscripts in 2021, which is 91.1% higher than those in 2019-2020 (average: 1910 papers/year). In 2021, WJCC published 1296 articles, representing an increase of 105.1% compared to those in 2019-2020 (average: 632 articles/year). The numbers of webpage visits and downloads received by the seven journals have increased year by year. For example, the number of total visits received by WJG in 2019-2021 was 1974052 in 2019, 2317835 in 2020 (increased by 17.4% compared with that in 2019), and 2652555 in 2021 (increased by 4.4% compared with that in 2020). The visitors were from more than 220 countries and regions worldwide, such as the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. Open access (OA) plays a vital role in improving the quality, efficiency, transparency, and integrity of academic journal publishing. From 2019 to 2021, a total of 5543 OA articles were published in the seven journals, of which 2083 (37.6%) were invited and published free-of-charge. During the same period, 1683 articles were published in WJG, and the authors were from more than 70 countries and regions. For the total 5543 articles published in the seven journals from 2019 to 2021, 3903 article quality tracking reports were received after the online publication of these articles. The quality of the articles was further evaluated through the Baishideng’s article quality and author evaluation tracking system, with 4655 articles (84.0%) having received author evaluation and feedback, which contributes to tracking metrics for authors’ satisfaction with the collective publication processes. From March 25, 2021 to June 28, 2022, the seven journals received a total of 424 reader evaluations and 229 letters from readers; this subsequent reader engagement demonstrates that the popularity of the published articles and the volume of their readership audience were improved through the reader evaluation system.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the findings from our bibliometric assessments indicate that establishing, promoting and actively practicing processes that safeguard and bolster the integrity of the editing and publication process also help to improve the academic influence of academic journals, which itself is the cornerstone for improving JIF.

Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications

BACKGROUND

Retracted articles represent research withdrawn from the existing body of literature after publication. Research articles may be retracted for several reasons ranging from honest errors to intentional misconduct. They should not be used as reliable sources, and it is unclear why they are cited occasionally by other articles. This study hypothesized that several mechanisms may contribute to citing retracted literature and aimed to analyze the characteristics of articles citing retracted literature in anesthesiology and critical care.

METHODS

Using the Retraction Watch database, we retrieved retracted articles on anesthesiology and intensive care medicine up to August 16, 2021 and identified the manuscripts citing these retracted articles. A survey designed to investigate the reasons for citing these articles was sent to the corresponding authors of the citing manuscripts.

RESULTS

We identified 478 retracted articles, 220 (46%) of which were cited at least once. We contacted 1297 corresponding authors of the studies that cited these articles, 417 (32%) of whom responded to our survey and were included in the final analysis. The median number of authors in the analyzed articles was five, and the median elapsed time from retraction to citation was 3 years. Most of the corresponding authors (372, 89%) were unaware of the retracted status of the cited article, mainly because of inadequate notification of the retraction status in journals and/or databases and the use of stored copies.

CONCLUSIONS

The corresponding authors were generally unaware of the retraction of the cited article, usually because of inadequate identification of the retracted status in journals and/or web databases and the use of stored copies. Awareness of this phenomenon and rigorous control of the cited references before submitting a paper are of fundamental importance in research.